<p>Well, not really. The online systems allow employees to offer their shifts to others who then pick them up. It can work pretty well, actually. The sick kid problem has always been a problem, though. </p>
<p>No, the flex works both ways. I have worked @Starbucks and many other PT jobs over the school years. And all jobs pretty much expect you to show up or get somebody to cover. And OTOH in full-time jobs the sick child excuse to get paid time off when you have none coming is widely abused. </p>
<p>
I agree with you about not tolerating terrible work policies and schedule and that there is room for improvement, but since when is Starbucks a terrible job? Starbucks is not a terrible place to work at and neither is the place I have described. </p>
<p>Like previous posters have said , flexibility is on both sides. At my job, based on my managers, calling in to say you can’t come in because your child is sick will not get you fired. The managers will not be happy and you will be expected to pick up a good amount of slack from dropping the ball, but it should not become a habit. Imagine of you had an employee who you are relying on to meet company benchmarks but they keep missing work. </p>
<p>Starbucks is, apparently, a terrible place to work if you have a young child, because their policies make it prohibitively difficult to arrange child care, as was documented in the article. And the same is true of many other low-wage employers.</p>
<p>Being a broke single mom is always going to be hard. Starbucks is not her biggest problem.</p>
<p>Sounds like you think she and her child should pay for their transgressions. Steady work could help her climb a little further out of poverty and that would be of benefit to all of us, don’t you think?</p>
<p>What? So we blame Starbucks for their scheduling policies and call it a terrible place to work because it’s not working for her at this point in her life? I read the article. She has a lot of issues. Steady hours at part time jobs are very rare and that’s been a long time trend. Actually, in many restaurants it was the case decades ago.</p>
<p>In fact Starbuck’s is now willing to change that policy. But you seem to be saying that it has always been that way so why should it change? Why shouldn’t it change? Don’t you think it would be better if people in low wage jobs could schedule classes and child care? Or do you think it’s better if they can’t? Because it’s been that way for a long time is not much of a reason for keeping the status quo.</p>
<p>Nothing is perfect. The new system if there is one will not be perfect, either. And, if you are a single mom with a sick kid and no babysitter you will still have a problem. Whatever tweak they make is not going to change that fact. What is the status quo? Because if it’s odd hours and being expected to cover your shift I don’t think that’s changing anytime soon. Btw, plenty of students do work very happily at Starbucks and manage to schedule classes. It’s really not as bad as maybe you are imagining.</p>
<p>I don’t understand the point of this thread. There are very few part-time jobs that work regular hours. Somebody has to work at 6 o’clock in the morning and if it’s not busy somebody will be sent home. That really can’t change.</p>
<p>Oh good. That’s a relief. Because I imagined it was, you know, pretty bad. </p>
<p>Wow. I can’t believe how little sympathy there is for Ms. Navarro, who is doing ALL the things everyone says poor people should do to “rise up” and get ahead.</p>
<p>I also can’t understand giving Starbucks such an easy pass for having antiquated scheduling systems. My D works at a kids’ party place that uses a great website called When To Work to schedule people. (This is a franchise business, certainly without the deep pockets of Starbucks and they can afford this scheduling system.) It is a brilliant, simple solution to scheduling problems. You put in your standing availability, and then block off specific days you can’t work. Each week a new schedule is posted, but it’s pretty predictable if you have entered your preferences. There is a tradeboard for employees to trade shifts with others, and you can also post that you are looking to pick up more hours. It is just not that complicated. Starbucks COULD use something like this if they didn’t look at employees simply as cost that has to be driven out of the business.</p>
<p>What is Starbucks antiquated scheduling system, sally? How do you know that Starbucks currently does not have something similar, even if it is run by the employees?</p>
<p>I really doubt Starbucks is using an antiquated system. What was described in the article sounds pretty typical.</p>
<p>OK, maybe “antiquated” wasn’t the right word. But a system that schedules individuals for “clopenings” doesn’t seem exactly cutting edge. My point was that there ARE better systems out there, and Starbucks can certainly afford one.</p>
<p>You know, even if you didn’t have a kid, the kind of scheduling chaos described in the NY Times would make for very difficult work conditions. The woman in the article doesn’t deserve the single-mom shaming some seem so eager to give. </p>
<p>People who are expected to be “on-call” 24x7 ought to be paid 24x7. </p>
<p>Employees who are called into work and sent home before even working deserve some compensation for their time. I’d go so far as to say that a minimum shift should be paid – perhaps 3-4 hours. I can’t imagine paying $2.50 each way for a bus ride only to find out that the work I’d been scheduled for didn’t exist. </p>
<p>Well, I don’t think any Starbucks employees are expected to be on call 24/7. My kids know a few baristas. I’ll ask. I also didn’t see any single mom shaming. I did see an acknowledgement that it makes working these types of jobs that much harder if you don’t have a grandma or something to watch the child for free and reliably.</p>
<p>The article left me with a pretty big question. It described the various travails of the employee – and then at the very end, reported:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here is the part that is missing for me: Had Ms. Navarro ever discussed the scheduling issues with her manager before then? Did the manager even know that the 22 year old employee was a single mom who was commuting for hours by bus to get to work? </p>
<p>Managers aren’t prescient. But they obviously do have flexibility. </p>
<p>It would be a very different story if there was a history of intransigence on the part of the manager. But the only reference at the beginning of the article is this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is – it sounds like Ms. Navarro was afraid that if she didn’t work every shift she was given, she’d get passed over and lose hours overall. But there really is no evidence that was the case. Maybe, if she had approached the manager early on, adjustments would have been made sooner. Maybe the reason that she was getting such an erratic schedule is that she was one of only a handful of employees who hadn’t expressed specific preferences as to availability- so she was being scheduled to fill in all the gaps.</p>
<p>I don’t doubt that it’s tough to try to raise and support a kid and go to school while working as a Starbucks barista… it just seems that maybe part of the issue is the employee’s lack of awareness as to how to advocate for herself and communicate her needs. </p>
<p>calmom, you took the words right out of my mouth. I found many of the issues that were recently brought up could’ve been resolved if Ms. Navarro spoke with her manager. The article hinted that she was a dependable worker. Wouldn’t a manager want to help someone who is a positive impact on their team?</p>
<p>
This sounds like a managerial problem. A manager is supposed to notify their employees when their shifts are no longer needed. </p>
<p>@sally305 “Clopenings” are not a determining factor in whether a system is sufficient or not. </p>
<p>calmom and Niquii, I don’t think either of you understand how hesitant (even afraid) some people are to talk to their managers in service industry jobs–especially young people. My kids are a few years younger but they would have a very hard time making “demands” of an employer if they were desperate to keep a job. Even the younger employees in professional positions at my company have trouble advocating for themselves.</p>
<p>And yes, a system that allows HUMAN BEINGS–not automated equipment–to be scheduled into inhumane conditions is an insufficient system. One of the comments along with the article put it well:</p>
<p>"…it is hard for the victims to pin down a sole human face as the perpetrator. This is why “they” get away with it. The “system” argument has been used as the scapegoat for many years. And it is no different than this one. This report needs to go deeper into WHO made the executive decision to dehumanize the scheduling system. When we can pin down the exact person responsible for this, it is only then we can start to find a solution."</p>